Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it defines 'acted on', warns that nulls appear for keys limited to part of the map, and explicitly states Maplith does not estimate value or attribute change to an action, which prevents an agent from over-reading the numbers.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is stated up front, but the body is one sprawling semicolon-delimited sentence enumerating every count. Because there is no output schema, that enumeration does earn its place as return-value documentation, but a bulleted or segmented structure would make it far easier to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so exhaustively across signals, notices, findings, actions, gates, stated value, dead connections, and metrics. Combined with the null-case and no-attribution caveats, an agent has enough to call and interpret this correctly; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents ISO 8601 format, defaults, and the 400-day cap for since/until. The description's 'Default period: the last thirty days (since, until)' restates schema content rather than adding format or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: summarise what the workspace got out of its signals over a period, as counts within the key's scope. It is clearly an aggregate-report tool rather than a list/get tool like get_metric or list_signals, though it never explicitly names those siblings to differentiate itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a period default ('the last thirty days (since, until)') and explains scope caveats (gate approvals are workspace-wide, null for a partial-scope key), which implies when it is appropriate. But it never says when to use this instead of get_metric, list_findings, or get_map_overview, and offers no explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.